(but you knew that).
What is it with them? As our Canadian friends pointed out (see below post), they ignored a press conference at which the current and fully elected President of Iraq stated that ‘civil war is out of the question and… the Iraqi people will not accept [for] a civil war to take place’ in favour of Mr Allawi, the former President’s comments about civil war being emblazoned across the BBC website all through Sunday.
Then, today, they report Bush denying the case stated by Mr Allawi, as though that were more logical than demonstrating balance with comments from Iraq’s current and elected President. Just who do the BBC think runs Iraq? Bush, from the Whitehouse? Why, he must be a clever chap! There’s something both lazy and patronising in bypassing the elected President’s comments in favour of the former and unelected President’s comments, partially, one feels, because Allawi deigned to make his to the BBC directly.
It’s not balanced reporting to only allow the news to be filtered through the BBC’s own favourite caricature-politician, saying ‘He said there were many voices that disagreed with Mr Allawi’s view, including President Jalal Talabani and top US commander Gen George Casey.’
Look Beebies- we know about these voices disagreeing with Allawi, but no thanks to you! Bush’s comments were not themselves news, but referring to news. They are not opinion expressed by the President of the USA, but facts that the BBC should merely have acknowledged. Some people accuse Bush of failing to state his case, but often all he fails to do is to rip into the sensitive media souls who fail to paint the picture truly and can’t understand why that makes some people, interested people, angry. Bush refers to shadows and the public disbelieve him, and whose fault is that when the shadows in fact are real yet go unrecognised and unreported by the farcical MSM?
See also: The Belmont Club’s analysis.
Just out of interest, and not scientific or anything, but I note that a search on the BBC news site for Moazzam Begg brings 41 hits, whilst a search for Mohammed Ajmal Khan brings 2.
archduke
Thanks for the link:
Iran’s mullahs signed a huge agreement with BBC
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_14250.shtml
Iran will soon present its tourist attractions in a publicity campaign to be waged in the international and local television networks, said an official of Iran Cultural Heritage and Tourism Foundation (ICHTF) in Madrid Wednesday. “The publicity campaign will be in the form of advertisements introducing cultural, historical and development attractions of Iran,” said Deputy Head of ICHTF for Cultural and Communication Affairs Alireza Sajjadpour.
“We have signed a huge agreement with BBC,” he added. He, however, declined to cite the contracts’ details.
Oh?
Rob: “The BBC management needs the most honest, effective and correct feedback system ever invented… Namely dump the TV-tax and allow people to subscribe”
That’s a wider argument, of course, and one that personally I haven’t made up my mind on. My inclination is always to look at market-driven solutions first, other options second. Even if you think that the BBC provides generally great-quality content (as I do) there’s a legitimate argument that says that it should be exposed to market forces. Personally, I’d subscribe to a BBC service that cost me the price of the license fee per year and provided all that it currently does. I’d like to see a situation arise where you could opt out of that, and recieve none of those services.
“Does anyone think that Allawi’s views were not worth reporting at all?”
Allawi was rubbished by the BBC previously, since he was regarded as an American stooge, but as soon as he says anything along the BBC party line, he’s flavour of the day at broadcasting House.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4832740.stm
is “British citizens” the new version of “plumber” ?
Replaying the Humphrys interview with Colleen Gaffey bmakes it sound even worse than the first time round. Half-way through she is making the central point that Humphrys and the BBC can never accept, that Gitmo prisoners are held under the laws of war – not under normal criminal law. Humphrys demands to know, several times with heightened voice – “Who are we at war with ?”
In effect, denial that there is a global war on terror, on Al Q and all its lookalikes. A war on the bombers of New York, Bali, Madrid, London Sharm, etc etc etc etc. A war on the creeps that are finally being brought to court in Britain. The lead presenter, on the lead BBC radio news programme, denies that we are under threat, that they have not only DECLARED war on us but have COMMITTED acts of war.
That is what is meant by why we want the BBC to present the BRITISH view – not to be an apologist 24/7 for the terrorists.
And Tony Blair’s attack yesterday on media who refuse to accept that we are at war with Islamist terrorism sounds like a direct attack on the John Humphrys line.
It will be interesting to see how the new editor of Today plays this. Will he ever be able to get a reain on this maverick, anti-American interviewer ?
Eamonn: “Allawi was rubbished by the BBC previously, since he was regarded as an American stooge”
Can you show me where Allawi was rubbished, please?
And it’s worth noting that Allawi’s statements didn’t go unchallenged in the original story: Both unnamed “analysts” (bad practice – names should be cited) and John Reid were quoted as, respectively, pointing out that Allawi was guilty of political manoeuvering and denying the claims.
Ian
No problem paying taxes for the imperfect delivery of services that can only be provided by the taxpayer, but the BBC provides a service funded by taxes that is in competition to unsubsidised alternatives. I chose to send my children to private schools and have private health insurance, but I accept the “greater good” argument (up to a point) that forces me to pay taxes for state schools and the NHS.
The BBC is neither the state “education” system nor the NHS. It is a taxpayer funded competitor to any number of alternatives, and as such it is unjustifiable.
dumbcisco: Asking the question “who are we at war with?” is, surely, pertinant to the case of how prisoners are treated. If you are not at war, then any prisoners have to be held in accordance with criminal law – which would mean bringing them to trial without delay, and treating them according to the rules set out in US law. If, on the other hand, we are at war, then it’s a perfectly valid question to ask “with who?”.
In my view – which, I stress, is not that of the BBC – we are not at war. In the 1980’s, Thatcher (quite rightly) attempted to treat the IRA and its prisoners as common criminals. That is what Al Qaeda are, too. Terrorists are criminals. To claim we are at war with them is to dignify them with a status they don’t deserve.
can you access BBC News website? I can’t – 1:08pm
MarkE: “The BBC is neither the state “education” system nor the NHS. It is a taxpayer funded competitor to any number of alternatives, and as such it is unjustifiable.”
All good points, and it’s up for debate how and if we fund the BBC in the future. You can, of course, argue that there should be no BBC, or that it should be subscription-only, or whatever.
However, I don’t see how you can ask of the BBC something that it’s not able to give – perfection – on the basis of how it’s funded. I think it’s reasonable to ask it to be better, and to acknowledge (and fix) things that go wrong.
Asking the question “who are we at war with?” is, surely, pertinant to the case of how prisoners are treated. If you are not at war, then any prisoners have to be held in accordance with criminal law
Not at all. If you find someone on a battlefield it is unlikely to be a criminal. It is not yet a crime to be on a battlefield with a gun, but it does invite termination. If you wear a uniform and are authorised by a State signatory to international agreements you have protection of those Conventions.
Without that you are a spy and can readily be shot.
Bearing arms on a battlefield is usually the hallmark of a combattant not a criminal. It is not usual to put enemy combattants on trial as criminals – but Germany did just this with USAF pilots as did Japan before executing them as “Criminals”. This action was later construed a war crime.
Further British soldiers and airmen who died in Auschwitz – and there were several – were not alluded to postwar. They were not criminals nor political prisoners, but combattants covered by the Geneva Conventions.
Criminal law has no application in cases of warfare, and in the case of Afghanistan the penalty would be death in any event. Those held at Gitmo should be grateful to be alive since by any other criteria they could have been terminated on the battlefield
ritter -> same problem here. its somewhat slower than normal.
probably just a ton of traffic because of the Brownstuff “budget”.
I don’t see how you can ask of the BBC something that it’s not able to give – perfection – on the basis of how it’s funded
So why not use the same funding model for the Church of England ? By law every English person is entitled to baptism in an Anglican Church, so why not introduce a compulsory Church Tax of say £140 per household per year to fund the Church of England ?
Whatever reasons exist for the BBC to have a legal entitlement to tax should apply to the Established Church whose Royal Charter predates that of the BBC by around 400 years and unlike the BBC maintains a presence in every village and town of England
IB
We ARE at war. Period. The terrorists are waging a war on the West, ideologically based.
You deny we are at war. So do most of the BBC types.
That is the gulf. That is what let Humphrys deny the US is at war when Al Q killed 3000 in New York, that is what lets John Simpson describe terrorists who kill children in the street and people at funerals as “misguided criminals”.
The specific instance of Gitmo concerned Brits who were captured in Afghanistan – in a WAR ZONE. Of course they are subject to the laws of war. You and the BBC can duck and weave, but to deny that Afghanistan was a war zone is ridiculous.
“Can you show me where Allawi was rubbished, please?”
Oh come on, I have heard dozens of Naughtie and Humphreys sneers when referring to him on the Today programme over the last couple of years.
How about this:-
“Iyad Allawi is one of a US-backed clique of secular Iraqi opposition figures who lived in exile until the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in April 2003.
But he has the advantage as prime minister – to paraphrase one commentator – of being equally mistrusted by everyone in Iraq’s multifarious population.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3757923.stm
There will be much more if anyone cares to dig.
ian – here’s the “who are with at war with” transcript… cg= coleen graffy, h= john humphreys
its worse when you hear it – humphreys sneering just cannot be put across accurately in writing – you have to hear it to believe it.
******************************
cg: so when britain was fighting argentina during the falklands war you did not bring argentinian soldiers to the old bailey to be charged by Rumpold (interrupted)
h: right! we were at war with argentina! with which country is the united states at war?
cg: well, the united states is at war with al qaeda and its associates (interrupted)
h: ah – no no. i’m sorry. can you answer the question?
with which country, with which legal entity, with which country is the united states at war?
can you please tell me that, then we will understand what united states is doing.
cg: you have put your finger on it exactly. thats the difficulty with this conundrum (interrupted)
h: difficult?
cg: because you dont have , you dont have a state doing this. you have non state actors (interrupted)
h: right!
cg: in the form of al qaeda. (interrupted)
h: so would you answer the question then!
with whom is the united states at war with?
is the united states at war with al qaeda?
cg: yes – al qaeda
h: is it!!??
cg: and associates
h: right!
cg: and taliban.
h: a-ha!
>>it’s up for debate how and if we fund the BBC in the future.
Sadly, the matter is not “up for debate” anytime soon. We have to pay the tv tax or go to jail. The Govt have guaranteed the license fee for years to come already.
Nobody expects perfection, and you will have seen other references to news organisations that also get it wrong. However, the BBC gives a consistent left-wing bias which is in theory not permitted, but is in practice unchallengeable, which is the main thrust of the bbbc blog.
heres the infamous interview in realplayer format:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_guantanamo_20060303.ram
“british citizens” wanted to buy a nuke , court is told:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4832740.stm
So they want to nuke Britain – but “useful idiots” like IB think we are not at war with them ? That they are not at war with us ?
Infantile reasoning. Like saying Hitler was a criminial, not a warmonger. Crazy and sick.
Ian
I think we agree. If the BBC is to demand money with menaces from me, I demand that it be perfect. It cannot be perfect, therefore the only option left is that it stop demanding money with menaces.
I would be equally happy were it to go subscription only, or sell the advertising space it fills with trailers at present. I can’t remember the last time I watched or listened to two BBC programmes without a commercial between, and there are regular breaks in Johnnie Walker before traffic reports and the news.
OT but symbolic of the BBC:
“Mr Brown said he wanted all school pupils to get the same quality of education currently enjoyed by prviate school pupils. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4832840.stm
They all went to Eton then!
I do wish Humphrys and the rest of the quislings would be just a little consistent. They say we are not at war with any legal entity and the Gitmo detainees must be brought to trial or released. Fine, but in this case the Geneva Conventions and the protections afforded by them don’t apply. As combatants of a non-legal entity, found armed on the battlefield, we can shoot them.
If the Geneva Conventions do apply then we should apply them in full. That means we can hold all detainees for as long as hostilities remain. In this war that could be a long long time.
Bryan
Could it be that there is a Pakistani clique in the HYS studio and they just couldn’t stand the support shown by those who recommended the Indian guy?
It’s happening with all the “off-message” posts on that thread, not just on the Indian guy’s post.
Week beginning March 20th: This week we are doing some testing on the Recommendation System. This means that you will probably see that the system will be working differently with the number of recommendations on comments changing both up and down, and more rapidly than previously. We apologise for this, but it is essential work that needs to be done, and can only be done in the live system. It will hopefully make the Recommendation System better in the long run. Thank you for your patience.
As most of us predicted a few months ago, they are undoubtedly tampering with the “recommended post” feature because it allows too much “off-message” (i.e. honest) feedback from the proles.
Look for the “new” system to put Bilal Patel and all other “on-message” posters back on top.
Whoops, that was moi posting above as Anonymous.
Ian,
Both of which are accurate, unlike the original report. To any reasonable reader, the “fully-elected” means elected by the people, which Allawi isn’t. You wouldn’t say that Tony Blair was “elected as prime minister”, because it’s simply wrong.
Actually both would be inexact but not per se wrong.
“One, this is a blog without thousands of employees and the other resources of the BBC. ”
Bill, I assume that you have access to Google? It took me less than a minute to find out that “fully-elected” wasn’t correct, using no more tools than a search engine.
If one did as you suggest and went where many people go to Wikipedia you would get ‘2005 Elected President of Iraq'[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_Talabani] or look on the BBC which quotes an Iraqi MP saying ‘We are happy that the first elected president of Iraq is coming from a community that has been persecuted for years’ [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4415459.stm].
Now whilst one can understand why a blog makes comments that aren’t 100% correct but in general are a major broadcaster with a large news staff should be held to a higher standard. Also while you can comment freely on what is said here you can’t on the BBC.
“Two, presenting only one error as evidence of a pattern is always dishonest.”
I’m happy to say I’ll be sticking around for a while and picking up on any other errors. You should be glad about this – I know from experience that writing to an audience that doesn’t criticise makes it hard to keep your standards of accuracy up.
Good
Brownstuff really is a twat isnt he?
quote:
Mr Brown said he could have used the money to cut taxes but “investing in education comes first”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4832840.stm
But the lesson from Eastern Europe and Ireland is that if you cut taxes , you end up with increased revenue, because cutting taxes spurs on economic growth.
Mr Brown predicts growth of between 2 to 2.5%
but inflation is running at 2.4%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4828390.stm
so in effect – the british economy has come to a halt. its stagnant.
Bryan,
Um… yes, looks like we were guilty of a bit of a rush to judgement here.
Do you really think they are dicking around with the “recommended post” system to make it “better”? Nothing’s wrong with it now, except that the “wrong” results keep showing up in the voting.
But the lesson from Eastern Europe and Ireland is that if you cut taxes , you end up with increased revenue, because cutting taxes spurs on economic growth.
How very true. But this is Gordon Brown and this is a Labour government. Common sense doesn’t come into it. It’s all about expanding the client state.
OT:
Latest (D)HYS:
Should religious converts be punished?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=1359&&&edition=2&ttl=20060322142604
Is this really up for debate? Ironic that this is the question that pushed the Prince Charles “tolerance” question off the world page.
If anyone is interested in an antidote to BBC radio try this…
http://www.kknt960.com/kknt_programguide1.html
Is a feed to a number of US conservative talk shows. It really is an eye (ear)opener to hear intelligent conservative broadcasting. There’s simply nothing like it over here.
Laura Ingraham is highly entertaining, constantly lampooning US liberals and the US media and is on a one woman mission to redress the balance on Iraq coverage. In the evening (UK time) Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt are also good value.
Should religious converts be punished?
A Muslim man who converted to Christianity could face the death penalty in Afghanistan.
Abdul Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and could be executed under Sharia law unless he reconverts.
This is thought to be Afghanistan’s first such trial, reflecting the tensions between conservative clerics and reformists which have arisen since the fall of the Taleban.
Should religious converts be punished? What effect will this have on people’s freedom to worship? Should the international community get involved in the case? Send us your comments and experiences
Jesus H Christ on a bike. Is White City a complete moral desert?
Laura Ingraham’s show is live right now. She caused a big fuss across the US media yesterday by accusing them (on the US Today programme) of limiting their Iraq coverage to hotel balcony shots in the Green Zone reporting about IEDs and deaths – SELDOM getting out and about in Iraq, SELDOM seeing the response US troops get from ordinary Iraqis and Iraqi kids, seldom looking at the reconstruction efforts, seldom working in-field with the Iraqi security forces.
Sounds very much like the BBC. The Panorama prog on Sunday was way out of step with most of the BBC’s coverage.
Here’s the US Today piece with Ingraham.
http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/03/21/carville-ingraham/
Ingraham’s line is that the media constantly follows the progress OF THE ENEMY in Iraq in destroying things, in killing people. It is time they followed OUR progresss in protecting people and things, in building and restoring things.
Only Cults punish those who want to leave…………..no better proof of Islam = Death Cult is needed
Re Blair’s speech yesterday – The BBC1 10pm news provided only a silent tape of Blair delivering his speech, whilst the newsreader provided a 2 sentence summary.
Close enough to be regarded as being ignored by the BBC.
Blair’s speech was a direct attack on the sort of line the BBC takes on Iraq.
Of course the BBC tended to ignore it. It is called bias by omission.
i’ve not had a chance to watch it yet, but from reading the transcript of Blair’s speech, he said some seriously hard hitting things – grown up strategic stuff – big issues.
which is obviously all far too adult for the schoolboy lecturing agenda that passes for BBC “news” output.
Note how anything , and i mean , ANYTHING to do with Islam gets a HYS
and yet, we never got a “bring back the death penalty” HYS in the wake of that Reading murder trial. All we got was the limp wristed “probation reform” hys.
staggering.
i think this Ian Betteridge character is a fake, a phoney just sent in here to stir up trouble, rattle a few cages..
the big fish is the one behind the betterigde or whatever his name is..assuming its a he?
photos can be easily downloaded from the web which are false..
i’d say to most of you, the real enemy is the not necessarily just the BBC, its the people behind the BBC, the Govt.
The only way to ensure impartiality is privatisation. The sooner that happens the better.
anything in Brownstuff’s budget about business and inward investment? anything at all? corporation tax still at 30% ?
Older contributors here may remember The Goon Show.
Announcer: ‘This is the BBC’
Goon Voice:’Hold it up to the light, not a brain in sight’
Should religious converts be punished?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/ …=20060322142604
This is a no-brainer.
Hilarious film of Cindy Sheehan – who has still not found time to agree on a tombstone for her son’s grave – and “Peace” marchers in the US.
I don’t see the BBC trying satire on a bunch of flaky peaceniks. They prefer to march to the same drum. Fellow-travellers with the communists of Stop The War Coalition, and apologists for terrorism.
Ian Betteridge,
I think there are two points that people (like myself) find unacceptable about the BBC.
First, we are forced to pay for it. It’s not up for debate – it’s a straightforward tax.
Second, the fact that it is “free at the point of delivery” means that it has the unique character of ubiquity. Mistakes, shoddy practice, and plain bias don’t wash away down the gutters of time as they do at, say, the Independent. The ubiquity of the BBC’s presence in our culture means the BBC’s inadequacies get passed on to embed themselves in our culture.
That ubiquity gives senior BBC producers and editors a heavy responsibility.
The trouble is, absent the market, there’s no effective oversight or discipline of them. The lack of any external, independent means of discipline encourages the worst traits of managers and journalists. Ie, the laziness, the casual inaccuracy, (gosh, how many times must we make the point?), the inability to think or observe outside its bubble, the kneejerk response to the chosen lobbyists.
What surprises me about the BBC is not that it is as it is, but that it can’t see that its present course is ultimately suicidal.
IMHO:
The best outcome for the BBC is to become a Mutual Society owned by it’s subscribers who elect the board.
Re. (D)HYS “Should religious converts be punished?” – Where’s it gone?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm
The best outcome for the BBC is to become a Mutual Society owned by it’s subscribers who elect the board.
Rob Read | 22.03.06 – 4:12 pm |
Ha Ha ……in an age when most Mutuals are de-mutualised by carpet-baggers ?
Try the ITV route and let Apax launch an LBO of the BBC then Gordon Brown and his friend won’t need to have a Blowout Sale of Peerages to plug the NHS deficits
Archduke wrote:
“Mr Brown predicts growth of between 2 to 2.5%
but inflation is running at 2.4%”
But what is measured by the ‘inflation’ rate? The inflation rate only measures that which Mr Brown decides should be measured. The real figures for inflation are, I suspect, considerably higher than the headline rates stated by the BBC.